Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: skybandit Date: Aug 11, 2010 10:00am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please move

Don't wanna bum ya out, but isn't the last line of the movie a copyright notice? My eyes aren't the best, so I can't tell if it's misspelled or something else that invalidates it.

UPDATE: Read your response on the movie's review, so the post above is redundant.
Yeah, it IS on the list, now that you mention it...but VC's been wrong and changed his mind before. I just keep track of what he says, figuring he knows more than I, since that's part of his business. That notice might well have been added later; some folks is sneaky! Then again:

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: PA0001069777 / 2001-12-13
Title: Death at love house / a Spelling-Goldberg production ; directed by E. W. Swackhamer.
Description: 2 videocassettes (Betacam SP)
Copyright Claimant: Spelling-Goldberg Productions (employer for hire)
Date of Creation: 1976
Date of Publication: 1976-09-03
Date in Notice: notice: 1975
Previous Registration: Some music prev. reg.
Basis of Claim: New Matter: dramatic, musical, literary & all other material.

Names: Swackhamer, E. W.
Spelling-Goldberg Productions

This says that the "Date in Notice" is 1975, so they would have had to falsify this claim, too. I'd believe that of Wade Williams, but Aaron Spelling has a lot more reputation to lose. If your copy is the same as these tapes, they're probably covered under that "new matter" BS.
Hope I'm wrong, would LOVE to see more Carradine on AI, even if it's just a cameo.

This post was modified by skybandit on 2010-08-11 16:52:22

This post was modified by skybandit on 2010-08-11 17:00:47

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Aug 11, 2010 11:44am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please move

The version that I uploaded is so blurry and old-looking that it seems unlikely that it's the version that had new matter added in 2001.

Perhaps the only reason for the addition of new matter was the realization that the film as it stood was in the public domain.

I hope that Video-Cellar will give an explanation.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: skybandit Date: Aug 11, 2010 4:28pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please move

Haven't seen a post from him in a while. Some of the newbies were giving him some $#*+, but I hope he knows the rest of us appreciate his efforts.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)